Appeal No. 95-4152
Application 08/042,044
to the inner deformable cap of Coombs, such would have been
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art by the mounting
of the camera/display to a strap or headgear worn underneath
the hard helmet in Hanson. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4 recites mounting the camera to a shroud removably
mounted to the inner deformable cap. Neither Hanson nor
Coombs teaches a shroud, much less a removable shroud. The
examiner relies on appellants' admission that shrouds are well
known for protecting the ears of the fire helmet wearer from
heat and flames (specification, page 12, lines 10-13).
However, the specification does not admit that known prior art
shrouds were removably mounted to the inner deformable cap as
recited in claim 4. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the removable
shroud of claim 4. The rejection of claims 4 and 5 is
reversed.
Claim 9 recites a curved protective shield mounted to the
brim and extending outwardly and downwardly over at least a
portion of the camera to further protect it from falling
objects and stratified heat (see figures 9 and 10). Claim 9
- 17 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007